Stumping for president in northwest Iowa, Sen. Ted Cruz described the ruling as “the very definition of lawlessness” -- the same epithet he applied a day earlier when the court affirmed Obamacare subsidies nationwide, even in states that, like Texas, refused to create their own insurance marketplace as contemplated in the text of the law.

“Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” Cruz told Fox radio host Sean Hannity. Both rulings, he said, were instances of “naked and shameless acts of judicial activism.”

WASHINGTON -- More than 1,000 people crowded the courthouse steps, overflowing across the street as the celebration started on a humid day in the capital.

Waving flags, posters and balloons, same-sex marriage supporters jumped, shouted, cheered and cried at news of the ruling. Some chanted "Love is love." The crowd came in everything from T-shirts and tank tops to business suits.

“To have that legal validation is momentous, meaningful and overdue,” said Kathryn Hamm, a Dallasite who moved to the Washington area in 1991.

When she got married in 1999, her mother started a business to help same-sex couples plan their weddings after she couldn't find a lesbian marriage photo album.

"Back in the day, coming out was a really hard and scary thing," said Hamm, "and making a choice to have a wedding with someone, it wasn't about the legal opportunity.”

A few politicians joined the celebration, among them Housing Secretary Julian Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio.

He said the ruling makes the United States "an even greater country," and that Texans from both sides will need to come together. "Over the next years, we'll have to ensure that it's not just the law that changes, but that hearts and minds continue to change as well," he said.

Religious conservatives were devastated.

"I look at a sea of souls. I look at a sea of beautiful people,' said a weeping Christine Weick, an author from Grand Rapids, Mich. "It's an awful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God when you have no second chance."

Jenese Garland of Washington had a hand on Weick’s shoulder. She called the ruling actually worse" than the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "because we willingly stepped away from God."

About an hour after the ruling, plaintiffs in the cases decided Friday emerged from the court, arms raised in victory. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff, said the ruling "affirms what millions across the country know to be true: Our love is equal."

The plaintiffs embraced each other and wiped tears. The crowd hushed as the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington huddled to sing the national anthem, followed with "Make them Hear You," from the 1996 musical Ragtime: "Your sword can be a sermon or the power of the pen," they sang. "Teach every child to raise his voice and then, my brothers, then will justice be demanded by ten million righteous men. Make them hear you."

Activists said the court's decision will help advance related causes, including workplace protections for gays and lesbians, and challenges faced by transgender Americans.

"We're viewing this as an opportunity to take the momentum from today's decision and really continue the fight," said Stacy Long Simmons, director of public policy and government affairs for National LGBTQ Task Force.

update 12 pm

Michael A. Lindenberger has dug through the majority and dissenting opinions for us. Highlights:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority:

“No union is more profound than marriage…. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, took pains to say he did not oppose gay marriage — only the court's role in establishing it, rather than leaving that to voters and lawmakers.

“[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.”

Marriage has long been universally understood as a heterosexual union, he wrote, because that is required for procreation.

“Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”

Roberts also warned that legalizing gay marriage might pave the way for polygamy: “[The majority] offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.”

He offered a message to gay marriage supporters:

“Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

update 11 am

WASHINGTON — While gay rights advocates are overjoyed today, GOP presidential contenders have weighed in on the Supreme Court’s blockbuster declaration that same-sex marriage is legal across the land with varying degrees of anger.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called the ruling “a grave mistake” that demands a constitutional amendment “to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.” That, he said, is the “only alternative left.”

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton tweeted that she is “Proud to celebrate a historic victory for marriage equality.” Aides replaced her campaign logo with a version repainted in the rainbow colors of the gay-rights movement.

On the GOP side, candidates emphasized the need to carefully screen future justices, including Rick Perry, the former Texas governor.

"I am disappointed the Supreme Court today chose to change the centuries old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue,” Perry said.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio struck a conciliatory tone: “While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law.”

Candidates courting social conservatives were livid.

Mike Huckabee, a pastor and former Arkansas governor, blasted the “imperial court” for usurping authority that belongs only to God. He also called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

“This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition,” he said. “The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity.”

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, said the court should have left the definition of marriage to states but stopped short of Walker’s call for amending the Constitution.

“We should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments,” Bush said. “In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

Update 10:08am

President Obama placed a call to the lead plaintiff in the case, Jim Obergefell, who was on speakerphone taking call live on CNN outside the Supreme Court.

“I’m really proud of you,” Obama told him, “and just know that not only have you been a great example for people but you’re also going to bring about a lasting change in this country. It’s very rare when that happens.”

“That means an incredible amount to me,” Obergefell said.

After the call, Obergefell noted that he can't celebrate with his husband, who died shortly after their marriage. "It is bittersweet for me,"

Moments later, the president spoke in the Rose Garden, marking the second major Supreme Court victory in two days for his agenda.

"Sometimes there are days like this when that slow steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives with a thunderbolt," Obama said. The court's ruling, he said, recognizes that "all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love."

It ends the patchwork of laws that left doubts as to whether a marriage recognized in one state would be recognized if a couple moved.

"This ruling is a victory ... for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for their basic civil rights" and for their children, Obama said. "And this ruling is a victory for America."

Obama noted that many Americans hold sincere and deep objections to gay marriage. Such differences of opinion, he said, should be respected. But he said, hearts and views can shift.

“Today we can say in no uncertain terms that we’ve made our union a little more perfect. It is the consequence of a decision from the Supreme Court” and of the “countless small acts of courage of millions of people, across decades, who stood up, who came out, who talked to parents. Parents who loved their children no matter what. Folks who were willing to endure bullying and taunts and stayed strong, and came to believe in themselves and who they were.

And slowly made an entire country realize that love is love.”

Obama called the ruling and what it represents “an extraordinary achievement….. America should be very proud.”

original post

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex marriage must be legal and recognized in every state, added a new chapter to a simmering fight over marriage equality.

The vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy– the traditional swing vote – writing for the majority that marriage is a "fundamental right" that cannot be denied because of the gender of a would-be spouse.

The ruling strikes down bans in Texas and other states, and hinged on whether the Constitution’s assurances of equal protection under the law requires states to license same-sex marriages and to recognize such marriages created outside their jurisdictions.

Gay and lesbian couples nationwide had anxiously awaited the answer, even as dread – or resignation -- grew among religious conservatives who sensed the court’s shift toward a growing public acceptance of same-sex unions.

The issue has vexed society, the court and legislators in Congress and state capitals for years. Activists on both sides had vowed to keep fighting if the other side prevailed in this round.

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State," the court held.

"...The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry."

Kennedy, a Catholic appointed by Ronald Reagan, was long presumed to be the crucial vote. He has written key opinions advancing the cause of gay rights and is often the swing vote between the court’s liberal and conservative blocs.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ views also were critical.

Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, was on the losing side of a 5-4 vote in 2013 that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, barred recognition of same-sex marriages for federal purposes, including taxes, immigration and employment benefits.

But Roberts went out of his way to note at the time that the court wasn’t deciding on the constitutionality of state laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman. And he had openly toyed with the issue of how states must treat marriages performed legally outside their jurisdiction – a crucial question in a mobile society.

The four most conservative justices were on the losing side, and each wrote a dissenting opinion: Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Same-sex marriages are legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia, through court rulings, legislation or voter referenda. Texas is one of 10 states with a constitutional provision that bars recognition of same-sex marriage. State leaders have vowed to resist federally imposed legalization.

In a dissent joined by Scalia and Thomas, the chief justice argued that the court would be effectively writing new law by recognizing same-sex marriage.

The idea that “same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples… has undeniable appeal.” And he noted that voters and Legislatures in 11 states have legalized such marriages.

“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be,” Roberts wrote.

The case at the heart of the new ruling involves a Cincinnati couple, Jim Obergefell and his partner of 20 years, John Arthur. In 2013, Arthur was in hospice care in the final months of a battle with ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

On June 26 that year, the high court struck down key parts of DOMA in a ruling called Windsor that Kennedy authored. At the same time, the court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Obergefell and his partner flew to Baltimore for a brief marriage ceremony and sought to have the union recognized in Ohio. Three months later, Arthur died.

When the case was argued before the high court in April, the justices wrestled with two central questions: whether states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and whether they must recognize such marriages performed in other states.

People lined up Friday for a seat inside the Supreme Court ahead of a major ruling on gay marriage.Â (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The constitutional issues were deeply entwined with issues of minority rights, equal protection, legal history, family dynamics and evolving social norms. The justices wrestled with the implications of a patchwork of contradictory laws, with some states explicitly banning gay unions and others freely offering them.

Roberts voiced doubts about the wisdom of having the high court impose a solution in the absence of a robust public consensus.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution — you’re seeking to change what the institution is,” he told the lawyer for gay couples challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. “The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship.”

Opinion leaders in Texas have split along lines of party and ideology.

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings signed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to legalize same-sex marriage. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz submitted a brief arguing the opposite, along with other GOP lawmakers.

While popular support for same-sex marriage has grown, dismay remains entrenched and heart-felt.

“I am concerned that our country would shake its fist in the face of God and say we don’t care what you say, this is how we’re going to define marriage,” said the Rev. Robert Jeffress, head pastor at the 12,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas. “The good news is that regardless of what these nine justices decide, the judge of all the universe has already spoken on this issue. God said that marriage is to be between one man and one woman for a lifetime and there is no appealing his decision.”

With a Supreme Court ruling defining such rites as a civil right, foes of same-sex marriage expect waves of lawsuits against florists, caterers, photographers and perhaps even clergy who refuse services to same-sex weddings.

And they worry about the impact on the culture, on families and communities.

“Whenever you counterfeit something, you cheapen the value of the real thing. And if marriage is whatever somebody decides it is, why bother to get married at all,” said Jeffress, noting that the marriage rate in the United States last year was the lowest in 93 years.

Earlier this month, dozens of religious leaders used full page ads in the Washington Post and USA Today to publish an open letter to the Supreme Court. They pleaded for the justices to protect anyone with religious objections to same-sex marriage from recriminations if it is legalized. A member of First Baptist paid half the cost of the ads.

Religious institutions have had their tax exempt status threatened or revoked for “discrimination.” And during the oral arguments in April, the Obama administration’s lawyer conceded this could be an issue.

At the Family Research Council, president Tony Perkins warned Friday that the court’s ruling badly damages its own legitimacy.

"Five justices on the Supreme Court have overturned the votes of 50 million Americans and demanded that the American people walk away from millennia of history and the reality of human nature,” he said. "…No court can overturn natural law.”